Orientalism in Apocalypse Now and Last Days in Vietnam - Movie Review Example

Orientalism in “Apocalypes Now” and “Last Days in Vietnam” Thesis- Despite the Americans being shown in a brighter light as saviors and helpers in Last days of Vietnam, the Vietnamese people still remains as the victims of war, at the mercy of American hands, representing orientalism just portrayed in a different perspective. On the other hand, they are portrayed as conquerors in Apocalypse Now. Introduction Orientalism is a way of perception that emphasizes, imagines, distorts and exaggerates the differences especially between the people of Arab origin and cultures in comparison to that of the US and Europe. It portrays the culture of the Arabs exotic, uncivilized, backwards, and even dangerous for the existence of humans. The two films to be analyzed “Apocalypse Now” and “Last Days In Vietnam” clearly illuminate orientalism perpetrated by the US. Therefore, despite the Americans being shown in a brighter light as saviors and helpers in Last days of Vietnam, the Vietnamese people still remains as the victims of war, at the mercy of American hands, representing orientalism just portrayed in a different perspective. On the other hand, they are portrayed as conquerors in Apocalypse Now. Orientalism in Apocalypse Now Apocalypse Now is a movie or rather a film whose setting is a depiction of during the war at Vietnam. Francis Coppalo is both the director and the producer of the film and the central or main character Sheen the captain of the army special officer of the US who is in a mission to assassinate the presumed insane and renegade colonel called Brando. The aesthetic, cultural, and historical significance of the film makes it very interesting and nutritious to the eyes. The movie is barely based on actual combat. Vietnam is basically used as a backdrop of psychological drama. The movie can’t be harshly faulted on the basis of dehumanization of the Vietnamese. This is due to the fact that there are some elements of racism as individuals dwelling in the jungles of tropical climates are portrayed as either uncivilized or tribal. However, am attempted to believe that Apocalypse Now creates a dream kind of atmosphere that is so fictions due to the fact that these stories never actually occurred in Vietnam (Cultbox). Apocalypse now portrays Americans as conquerors as well as holding on to Orientalist views or perception inclusive of looking down on the Vietnamese who are the enemies. Having watched Apocalypse for the second time, I concede that is absolutely incredible. Its cinematography and scale of production is absolutely amazing. I am however appalled at the general screen play and the Vietnamese treatment (Dorrien 621). The movie may be faceted in one of the Vietnam genre movies but it is not about Vietnam. Its concerns can be related to horrors associated with war, philosophical that denotes it, and psychological implications on human beings. One of the issues I have problem with is that despite the fact that Coppola illuminating that it isn’t about Vietnam, the main and supporting characters are neither Vietnamese. It is prudent to comprehend that the film is about the characters illuminated in it (Rendleman 150). It is relatively weird and difficult to imagine that a story to be written about the operations of the US military in an attempt to assassinate a US colonel who is rogue. This further worsens by the thought of the consequences suppose it is realized that the operations is in Cambodia. The end of the movie is in the settings of Cambodia as opposed to Vietnam. The scene at the river depicts the Cambodians (Rasch). It leaves more questions than answers the state of technology that randomizes the villages in jungles back then as well as how they treat the sailing ship of the military among them. It is also difficult to defend the fact that the US military are in the territory of the enemy hence encountering a settlement would have heightened their chances of being killed. However, this phenomenon can be argued that that occurrence would have posed some challenges to the story line. In addition, there is only a single line of language that a South Vietnamese speaks (the individual who insults the VC who is dying and Kilgore berates for not having provided him with water) (Dorrien 621). The second issue is that Vietnam is relatively densely populated yet neither the villages nor the towns are seen after the attack by the Valkyries Helicopter. The third issue is concerned with the inaccuracy in terms of history especially for a movie or rather a film claimed to be against lies let alone orientalist attitude directed at the natives. For an instant in some scenes, the Vietnamese attack with flare while in other scenes they do so with spears and arrows. Attacking through the use of spears seems being unable to provide adequate defense while attacking through flares can be argued to be relatively defensible though it can be debated. My thoughts are that Coppola’s intension is that the film is not Vietnam War rather it is the Vietnam War. In addition, the intension is not for the Apocalypses Now to be entirely instead about war holistically. Interestingly, the perception created is that the Westerner is worship by the Vietnamese as a god. On the other hand, the Westerner worships Brando thus creating the impression that the natives are doing so due to their perceived primitive nature. The portrayal of Kurtz (Brando) to be of god like status has completely nothing to do with the relationship to the natives who are followers but is all related to the effects inclusive of insanity of the war. Kurtz and his followers are portrayed as not only superior but also civilized. The behavior of Montagnard is that of either a savage or an animal. Interestingly, the leader of the people had to be a white male who in this case is Kurtz who inclusive of the photographer appear to be more civilized. Montagnard is referred to as Kurtz children by the photographer. The fighters in Vietnam in the film lack respect for the natives and attempt to avoid interacting with the natives in the least ways possible. Sheen, from a surreal perspective as well as the unreliability of the camera’s motion while following Sheen attempts to point out that Sheen may have neither seen Vietnamese nor did he want to see them though it does not imply that they were not there. The other angle of examining the film is that the philosophical nature inclusive of the human behavior especially when in the epicenter of the jungle where human being s are confronted with the challenge of being cognizant that they may die anytime because of war. The wars in the films are very unearthly and the men characters are not human. While Captain Sheen and Kilgore are on the beach after having given the orders for the helicopter to destructively strike Vietcong which is a village coast that is controlled. Kilgore shares at this particular scene that at war there is a lot of confusion concerning issues such as power, the necessity of military practices, and morality. The human heart during war is at conflict between either good and evil or irrational and rational. Interestingly, in most cases, the good rarely triumphs (Rasch). The other scene that attempts to perpetrate orientalism is at Nha Trang over lunch hour in the intelligent premise. The mission to assassinate Brando is a manifestation of degeneration into insanity in that war is aligned with the state of being insane (Cultbox). The journey of Sheen is an actual one on the upside of the river and one that is quite metaphorical through a terrain that is philosophical. Therefore orientalism through American conquering Vietnam manifests itself in the following ways: Lt Col Kilgore attacking, as well as, conquering Veitcong village; the Americans (westerners) being portrayed as superior to others; and the use of terms perceived to be racial such as “dinks and Gooks.” In addition, masculinity is also stereotyped being the western man being portrayed through orientalism as more masculine than the enemies or other persons. Besides, they are also portrayed as brave individuals with the ability of not flinching when under fire (Rasch). The scene depicting conversation on the boat can also be used to illustrate orientalism. At this particular scene, we see the Vietnam army being disrespected. Even the dead are discriminated on racial basis. The racial terms are used against the dead South Vietnamese officer (Rendleman 150). Orientalism in Last Days in Vietnam As for the Last Days in Vietnam, the calls for cease fire among the North and South Vietnam compels the troops of the Americans to withdraw. The film is directed and produced by Rory Kennedy and attempts to give a narrative of the wheels of American involvement in the country beginning to fall off (Vicentic). However, orientalism manifests in several ways in this film. In the Last days in Vietnam the connotation changes and the Americans now become Saviors and not conquerors. Captain Stuart Herrington disobeyed orders from the above and saves the people of Vietnamese. The captain evacuates the officers of Vietnamese he had worked with, as well as, their families. From a borrowed track, the captain drives his subjects to the airbase and gives them instructions not to make any kind of noise when three thumps are hard. The determination of Captain Stuart Herrington to get them out is amazing. He also gives advice and assurance to the people of Vietnamese that nobody will be left behind. In addition, the captain is also clouded with the guilt of having abandoned some the people of Vietnamese. On the other hand, Kiem Do, South Vietnamese Navy, gives a description of lowering the flag of Vietnamese on his hip due to the fact that the government is no longer acknowledged and recognized. They solemnly accept to have lost everything while the flag belonging to the Americans is raised on the sailing ship. This symbolizes the fall of Vietnam and the replacement of the Vietnamese people into American hands. Graham Martin, Ambassador loses his only son in combat in Vietnam and Sees Vietnam like his child. He refuses to give up the country and accept the facts that the country is lost. This is due to the fact that he refuses to give room or platform for discussion for the possibility of the Americans evacuating up to the last minute. The Americans are portrayed to have greatly sacrificed on behalf of the Vietnamese defense. The American soldiers, diplomats and journalist are imaged to have not only risked their careers but also their lives to save their friends with Vietnamese origin form the North Vietnam army that had invaded them. The US through the Paris Peace Agreement does not re-enter the war despite the violation of the agreements of the treaty. The units from the South Vietnamese fight both brilliantly and valiantly despite the fact that the North Vietnamese troops are armed by the Russians, as well as heavy arsenal. When the North Vietnamese takes over Saigon and the country, the Americans are slow in the processes of evacuating South Vietnamese who have worked with them and are facing the danger of from communism. Yet the Americans orientalism is geared towards portraying them as saviors (Little 333). At the preamble of the film, the background of the film is relatively very simple and abandons the historical inaccuracy besides being extremely manipulative. There is lack of indication that the makers of the film incorporated the views and opinion of the historians. Instead they apparently chose to depend on conventional discussion of the war. The US centralism, as well as, exceptionalism is highly portrayed in the film. The actions of the US entirely determine the results of the events that are unfolding exclusive of the actions of the Vietnamese and their agencies (Vicentic). In addition, the US debates which are perceived to be complex are related to or associated with liberal abandonment. It is a one sided politics of the US where the anti-war movements become the culprit and scapegoat for abandonment of the South Vietnamese. Furthermore, the film is not only manipulative but also false in framing the US propaganda and rhetoric’s of the cold war. The warring parties in the film are portrayed to be between the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese. This is propaganda that of discretion of the two countries and it has continued to be peddled around. The film is also characterized by one sided misrepresentation of the Paris Agreement and violence during war time (Ravi, Mario, and Beng-Lan 290). Conclusion As mentioned earlier, orientalism is a concept or rather away in which the US and Europe propagate their superiority and that of their cultures against other cultures such as Arabs or even African. In the “Apocalypse Now” movie, they are portrayed as conquerors as they are able to infiltrate the corridors of Vietnamese territory. They also look down upon the officers from Vietnamese as they use languages that are very disrespectful. The destructive nature of the attack through the use of helicopter emanates from the orders of the captain. The film attempts to create the perception that the US troops are more masculine and brave compared to those from Vietnam and despite the fact that they are fighting in a foreign territory, they are able to easily conquer that territory. I am attempted to argue that using an American as the main character is a way of perpetrating orientalism though it can be argued that the story line would have been completely different had the main character stemmed from Vietnamese. Some of the vindications portrayed in the movie are historically inaccurate hence giving the evidence of perpetration of orientalism. For an instant, in some of the scenes the Vietnamese or the natives attack through flares which is slightly defensible while in other scenes, they do so through the use of spears and arrows against the powerful US machines. Evidently, this method of attack almost guarantees those with advanced weapon the chances of emerging victories. Moreover, it attempts to illuminate how backward and retrogressive the natives are while the Americans or the Westerners are highly civilized even in the event of war. On the other hand, in the film, Last Days in Vietnam, the twists are turned and now the US are portrayed as saviors of the South Vietnamese from the North Vietnamese who are strictly lenient to the communism ideals of the Russians. Captain Stuart Herrington is imaged as the savior of the Vietnamese through his determination against all odds to evacuate the South Vietnamese from the Northern troops. He even laments having left some of his friends from South Vietnamese. Most of the representations in the film are one sided in relation to the peace agreement and violence during war. Beside, the US appears to be portrayed as both exceptional and centered. Evidently, despite the Americans being shown in a brighter light as saviors and helpers in Last days of Vietnam, the Vietnamese people still remains as the victims of war, at the mercy of American hands, representing orientalism just portrayed in a different perspective. On the other hand, they are portrayed as conquerors in Apocalypse Now. Work Cited: Vicentic Vlada. Last Days in Vietnam (full movie). Online Video clip. Youtube. 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y09oDChxqfY(Accessed on 2nd June 2015). Cultbox. Apocalypse Now (1979). Online Video clip. Youtube. 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkrhkUeDCdQ (Accessed on 2nd June 2015). Rasch, Albert. Apocalypse Now; the Do Long Bridge Roach Scene. Online Video clip. Youtube. 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f96p-IhcZhQ (Accessed on 3rd June 2015) Rendleman, Todd. Rule of Thumb: Ebert at the Movies. London: Continuum, 2012. Print. Truefilm. Orientalism and Racism in Apocalypse Now.2015. Web on 6th June 2015 Subverties. Last Day in Vietnam: Documentary fatally flawed. 2015. Web on 6th June 2015 Dorrien, Gary. Crisis, Irony and Postmodernity: 1950-2005. Louisville, Ky. [u.a.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Print. Little, Douglas. American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East Since 1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008. Internet resource. Ravi, Srilata, Mario Rutten, and Beng-Lan Goh. Asia in Europe, Europe in Asia. Leiden: IIAS, International Institute for Asian Studies, 2004. Print. Read More